Renderings the Chicago Children's Museum have been desperately hiding from the public reveal the scarring intrusiveness of the structures it wants to build in Grant Park. See them, and read a critique of Krueck and Sexton's design here.

21 comments:

you say brutalist like its a bad thing...I think it is pretty and would look good in that part of the park...open pit...i mean really...you may not want anything in the park but seriously get a grip...its not a bad design...if they are going to build something it should at least look like something.

"Brutalist" isn't necessarily a bad thing, true, but "parody of (Kruek and Sexton's) Spertus Center" is right on target. Regardless, why not build this at Northerly Island or the museum campus and avoid the issues altogether. (Or are the Field, Shedd, and Adler racist for having their museums over there?)

I don't understand the "pit." It looks like it'll create grade separations that make you feel trapped. There's nothing I hate more than being able to see where I want to go, knowing it's very close, but having to go way out of my way to get there. This is the feeling you get around the Illinois Center and new Lakeshore East development -- a helpless feeling of being trapped by poor access and infrastructure. Why not just have more human-scaled, intuitive access?

Sorry to read about the destruction of a great park. For relief you might consider living in Milwaukee where parks are being defended effectively against the attacks of privatization even while the County is cash-strapped.

There have been NO EXCEPTIONS in 172 years, that survived being challenged in court based on violating the dedication restrictive covenants. The Art Institute and the Harris were NOT challenged...However the Children's Museum will be challenged, and will not be the first and only exception in the history of Chicago.

“Brutalism”, Mr. Becker? Are you kidding? You are risking your credibility as a critic when you so obviously let your political biases so cloud your objectivity….As far as the current percentage of ‘hardscape’ vs. ‘landscape’ compared to the proposal, I’m not so sure that it is all that different….regardless, such observations along with your ridiculous assertion that a 20’ clear glass pavilion will somehow ‘tower’ over pedestrians is not only incorrect (maybe we should cut down all the trees that are over 12’), but is quite arguably irrelevant (re: Crown Fountain, Pritzker Pavilion, etc., etc., etc.)

it is unless you're actually claiming - and I wouldn't put it past you - that there's no difference between nature and man-made structure. that's what this is about - protecting the nature that's there against those, like you, who want to destroy it for their pet building projects.

About Me

. . . writings on architecture have appeared in the Chicago Reader, Metropolis Magazine, the Harvard Design Magazine, and the backs of discarded gum wrappers.
We reserve the right to delete posts that we judge spamatory, defamatory or unnecessarily obscene. If you prefer to berate me personally, email me here.